Employee rights and the politics of opposition

October 2024

Would you fancy working four days and getting paid for five? Or having a bit more flexibility in working patterns? Or protection against dismissal?

Chances are you’d say yes. But what if you’re an employer, would you want to give all that to a new worker from day one?

Do you want it for yourself but not for others? In other words, one rule for me and a qualifying period for everyone else. It’s a minefield.

And it got me thinking about how circumstances dictate behaviour and how tricky it can be to navigate.

Take the recent Investment Summit , hosted by Keir Starmer in a charm offensive to woo Big Business (and its cash) to these shores.

The first set of headlines were dominated by comments from Transport Secretary Louise Haigh who accused DP World – owner of P&O Ferries – of being a cowboy operator for the way it fired and rehired 800 UK workers two years ago.

In fact a government press release – approved by Downing Street according to the FT – doubled down and slammed P&O as a ‘rogue operator’.

It was the typical rhetoric of an opposition party used to shooting from the hip and doubtless played well with the unions and many rank-and-file supporters.

But in government the landscape is more complicated and rife with risk if politicians don’t adapt look beyond the soundbites which served well in opposition.

The hard reality meant that Keir Starmer disavowed Haigh and ensured plenty of healing oil was poured on troubled waters.

And DP World ended up announcing a £1bn investment into the UK, so all’s well that ends well. At least for now.

That said there’s many tensions already around the Budget – will Rachel Reeves go-ahead with all the plans to raise taxes on the rich and non-doms to match her election language.

Or will she compromise when faced with the more nuanced and complex reality of balancing growth, investment, a thriving UK financial centre etc, with ‘tax the rich’ rhetoric.

Likewise, introducing VAT on school fees. Raising money from parents who send their children to private school to, on paper, pay for 6,500 new teachers is good election fodder.

But there’s lots of economists who say no and that state schools will actually be worse, at least in the short term, through the unintended consequences of the tax hike on parents.

And if Rachel Reeves’ impact assessment says the same, then will she back the individual view or look at the bigger picture.

This all highlights the tension between what we want as individuals and what we need to do or say when in a power of authority or responsibility.

Whether it’s keeping schtum over DP World’s track record to attract valuable investment into the UK.

Or putting personal interest in a four-day week – or for parental leave, or the right to claim unfair dismissal – to one side and acknowledge that these new rights will cause many small employers’ headaches. Fear of the new rules could cause many employers to impose a hiring freeze or hold back investment money for growth.

My personal view – and yes, it is easy for me to say this in my fortunate position – is that there should be a long-qualifying period before being granted these rights.

Employers have enough on their plate without the risks and costs of giving people the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one. Or parental leave.

I know the argument that flexible working will allow many mothers back into the workplace. And that people need to be protected from exploitative or abusive bosses.

My point is, that like Labour is discovering, when you’re an employer it’s a constant balancing act. You need to weigh up the headlines versus the details and the impact.

You want to attract the best talent with the right culture and package. You want to keep people. But if the cost of getting what you want as an individual is too high, is it worth it?

And I wonder if Labour will reach the same conclusions on this, and for school fees, and other policy or political stance.